Pore Distribution Characteristics of Thawed Residual Soils in Artificial Frozen-Wall Using NMRI and MIP Measurements
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
The presented technical note is properly composed. It presents tan example of applicability of NMRI methodology for testing of frozen and thawed residual soils and possible benefits of its application.
But I have some doubts. Detailed comments are listed below with section names line numbers.
1. The introductory section seem to refer to many references which are not directly linked to the sentence or paragraph where they appear.
line 34 - reference [4] - is it really relevant to tuneling works?
line 49 - reference [9] - is it really relevant to artificial freezing impact?
line 52 - reference [10] - is it really relevant to artificial freezing impact?
line 55 - reference [13] - is it really relevant to pore size distribution?
line 58 - reference [17] - how can you link NMR to "gypsum particle breakage"?
line 63 - reference [20] - is it somehow related ?
2. Theoretical background should be “readable and understandable” for people willing to understand the principles of proposed (or rather applied) methodology. I observe a sort of disorder in equations and especially in their descriptions, font sizes, sub and superscripts. I'd suggest to make a list of symbols (preferably with units).
line 123 - keep the reference format - You may mention the author in a form "presented by Chen et al. [33]"
line 127 - "ρ2 as expressed in Eq.(4)" - ρ2 is not given in Eq.(4) ??!
line 129 - "Daigle and Dugan (2009)" is just "[35]"
What is Ks (??) and what is ks in the next lines? If it is the same, than Eq.6 does not make sense !!!!
line 131 - ks (μm2) Be aware of sub- and superscripts
3. Materials and methods section is almost ok. Soils and sample preparation method are clearly described. There are some editorial shortcomings concerning mainly sub- and superscripts. Testing apparatus is sufficiently defined.
line 154 - g/cm2
4. Concerning “Results and discussion”, I cannot see the reason to raise any concerns, due to very limited number of tested samples. There are again, however, many editorial mistakes
line 209 and 210 - Figure 5 not Fig.6 !!. Linear regression of 4 points is doubtful. R2=0,8724 is not a perfect fit. Some comments would be appreciated as the number of points cannot be increased now.
line 220 - Eq. 4 does not refer to coefficient ρ2 !!
line 228 - cm3
5. Conclusions (instead of Conclusion) are based on previously presented results – ok.
As a practicing engineer I’d like to know:
- what are the practical outcomes?,
- how can be that methodology applied to real projects?,
- what are the prospects for further development?
References
Many comments in the introductory section.
line 440 - reference [39] is identical to [33] !!!
Author Response
Please see the attachment！
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Applied Sciences (ISSN 2076-3417) applsci-674492 30 дек 2019
Pore Distribution Characteristics of Thawed Residual Soils in Artificial Frozen-wall Using NMRI Measurements
Dear authors
Need to change article title:
New Name: Pore Distribution Characteristics of Thawed Residual Granite Soils in Laboratory Frozen-wall Using NMRI and MIP Measurements
The article is devoted to the laboratory study of the effect of different freezing temperatures of Granite soils on the change in the pore space of soils after thawing. The study of the behavior of the pore space during freezing and thawing is important in understanding the mechanism of pore changes during soil freezing during the construction of subway tunnels. When measuring diameter of soil pores, the results of two methods were compared: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (NMRI) and by mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) tests. It was shown that the results were more accurate in determining the 1st method compared to the second. Previously found that the macroscopic viscoelastic behaviors of soils after artificial freezing treatments are related to the microscopic properties such as soil particles, water and ice contents. The authors' results showed that the damage degree of microstructure in thawed soils increases as the temperature drops, according to the visualized pore structure. This is important for the subsequent behavior of residual frozen soil on the walls of subway tunnels.
Remarks. It is necessary to indicate in the summary and conclusion: which soils were used, which freezing temperatures were applied, indicate what differences in results of the pore space obtained by different methods , to discuss the volume of pore water in the test sample for different freezing temperatures .
Tab. 1. Bisic needs to change on Basic
Article can be published after making appropriate corrections.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment！
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall, this paper can be published as a “Technical Note” after minor revision, despite a lack of discussion in the "Results and Discussion" section.
(Line 74) Although the author mentioned T2 in the abstract, it should be explained again in the first mention of the manuscript.
(Line 122) What is the meaning of “POSD”?
(Line 154) Author should provide the model and vendor of the XRD.
(Line 191) Author should provide the model and vendor of the AutoPore Ⅳ 9505.
(Line 301) Authors should provide more clear data in order to use the phrase “more accurate”.
Author Response
Please see the attachment！
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
